Land Patent Instructions

[rottweiler]

Originally Posted by B Rookard

Have you figured out the difference between words of purchase and words of limitation?

You are the one that has not figured it out. Land is not sold it is granted or giving for a valuable consideration, or thought, the "money" is proof of the transaction. Real estate and land are two different things. The attorney tricks are the limitations of what exactly is granted.

My assigns means whoever I want to grant my land to.

[B Rookard]

Originally Posted by rottweiler

You are the one that has not figured it out. Land is not sold it is granted or giving for a valuable consideration, or thought, the "money" is proof of the transaction. Real estate and land are two different things. The attorney tricks are the limitations of what exactly is granted.

My assigns means whoever I want to grant my land to.

Looks like the answer is "no."

[rottweiler]

Originally Posted by B Rookard

The title dates back to the patent.

They don't have the patent.

Please show me where the word "assign" even appears in the case. (I already know you can't by the way).

Are you making up words that aren't there?

You would have been better off if your mind was never programmed by the attornies to begin with. Now there is no turning back for you because you are a card carrying commie zombie sheeple.

They don't have the patent? They may not have brought it "forward" and recorded it along side theirs but they have it all right.

That case is about rights from a Land Grant Treaty, the Supremecy clause of the constitution, a board recognizing those rights in 1851 and rights that were susequently assigned to Summa Corp. according to the Supreme Court. If Summa Corp. does not have the patent how did these rights transfer from the original owners to the present?

I'll answer that question for you. Summa Corp is a assign.

The problem with the color of law people like RED ROOKARD is their brains are so full of lies that there is no room left for the truth.

[B Rookard]

Originally Posted by rottweiler

You would have been better off if your mind was never programmed by the attornies to begin with. Now there is no turning back for you because you are a card carrying commie zombie sheeple.

They don't have the patent? They may not have brought it "forward" and recorded it along side theirs but they have it all right.

That case is about rights from a Land Grant Treaty, the Supremecy clause of the constitution, a board recognizing those rights in 1851 and rights that were susequently assigned to Summa Corp. according to the Supreme Court. If Summa Corp. does not have the patent how did these rights transfer from the original owners to the present?

I'll answer that question for you. Summa Corp is a assign.

The problem with the color of law people like RED ROOKARD is their brains are so full of lies that there is no room left for the truth.

Wrong.

Summa Corp got its deed in a succession of transfers traced back to the original land patent.

The State of California says it has an easement ... also dating all the way back.

However, when it was time to assert that easement ... they were supposed to do it back in the 1850's. They didn't do that.

The proceeding to settle title and claims was held under the authority of the treaty and legislation.

The State didn't show up to stake its claim ... and now it wanted to come in 150 years later and try to assert its claim.

Not surprisingly, the Supreme Court said they were too late.

Really, I'm not sure what you think is so significant about this case.

[rottweiler]

Originally Posted by B Rookard

Wrong.

Summa Corp got its deed in a succession of transfers traced back to the original land patent.

The State of California says it has an easement ... also dating all the way back.

However, when it was time to assert that easement ... they were supposed to do it back in the 1850's. They didn't do that.

The proceeding to settle title and claims was held under the authority of the treaty and legislation.

The State didn't show up to stake its claim ... and now it wanted to come in 150 years later and try to assert its claim.

Not surprisingly, the Supreme Court said they were too late.

Really, I'm not sure what you think is so significant about this case.

I'll spell it out for you again. Since Commiefornia did not stake ANY AND ALL their bull$hit claims in the original patent proceedings they are barred from doing so at this late date. Summa Corp. had been assigned the same rights as in the original patent. All of the rights of the original patent are assigned(pass on) to Summa Corp.

I quote Summa:
"We hold that California cannot at this late date assert its public trust easement over petitioner's property, when petitioner's predecessors-in-interest had their interest confirmed without any mention of such an easement in proceedings taken pursuant to the Act of 1851. The interest claimed by California is one of such substantial magnitude that regardless of the fact that the claim is asserted by the State in its sovereign capacity, this interest, like the Indian claims made in Barker and in United States v. Title Ins. & Trust Co., must have been presented in the patent proceeding or be barred. Accordingly, the judgment of the Supreme Court of California is reversed, and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered."

Now what if the STATE of COMMIEFORNIA wants property tax from SUMMA CORP.? Same deal, the original rights pass on to all subsequent owners forever if they want to exert those rights. SUMMA would owe no property tax either. So you see RED ROOKARD when God said "thou shalt not steal" that means we have a right to private property even though luciferians such as yourself only believe in civil rights granted by the STATE(the beast) and public property.

[B Rookard]

Originally Posted by rottweiler

I'll spell it out for you again. Since Commiefornia did not stake ANY AND ALL their bull$hit claims in the original patent proceedings they are barred from doing so at this late date. Summa Corp. had been assigned the same rights as in the original patent. All of the rights of the original patent are assigned(pass on) to Summa Corp.

I quote Summa:
"We hold that California cannot at this late date assert its public trust easement over petitioner's property, when petitioner's predecessors-in-interest had their interest confirmed without any mention of such an easement in proceedings taken pursuant to the Act of 1851. The interest claimed by California is one of such substantial magnitude that regardless of the fact that the claim is asserted by the State in its sovereign capacity, this interest, like the Indian claims made in Barker and in United States v. Title Ins. & Trust Co., must have been presented in the patent proceeding or be barred. Accordingly, the judgment of the Supreme Court of California is reversed, and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered."

Now what if the STATE of COMMIEFORNIA wants property tax from SUMMA CORP.? Same deal, the original rights pass on to all subsequent owners forever if they want to exert those rights. SUMMA would owe no property tax either. So you see RED ROOKARD when God said "thou shalt not steal" that means we have a right to private property even though luciferians such as yourself only believe in civil rights granted by the STATE(the beast) and public property.

Wrong again.

In case you didn't notice in the case, California COULD HAVE proceeded to condemn the property ... they didn't want to do that though because they would have to pay out the wazoo to compensate Summa Corp. Even the Supreme Court said they could.

They tried to say they had an easement, to take the easy way out. And it may very well have been that they did. Their mistake was in not asserting it 150 years ago.

Now, just because the Supreme Court said they were too late to assert that they had an an easement ... does that mean they can't go out and condemn the land?

Nope.

Now they have to take the harder road.

The only kind of land patent cases involving non-taxability and that might go anywhere are Indian cases ... because they're considered a sovereign nation.

You wanna not pay taxes to the state and federal government ... you need to expatriate.

But that requires moving out of the country.

A perfectly acceptable thing to do ... people do it all the time.

[rottweiler]

I stand by what I said in my previous posts. A land patent properly brought forward is supreme title to land.
It falls under Treaty Law which is higher than the constitution or SCOTUS. Why do you think the Supremacy Clause is metioned in Summa? The first assignment must have wording that says this land cannot be taken for taxes and then the land is UNTOUCHABLE by ANY jurisdiction or STATE for any reason except for insurrection. If you don't agree, too bad.

Commie's or luciferians want to destroy three things, law, property and religion. This is why I call you RED ROOKARD. You are trying to trick people into thinking that there is no such thing as private property so you go from forum to forum trying to convince people. Just as you will never obey the Creator, I will never stop resisting Lucifer or believe your dissembling. You believe that our rights come from some jurisdiction or STATE. Baloney, our rights come from the Creator, so take your civil rights and stick them far up your a$$.

[B Rookard]

Originally Posted by rottweiler

You are trying to trick people into thinking that there is no such thing as private property so you go from forum to forum trying to convince people.

How assinine.

I'm trying to tell you that deeds convey title. And that you can have just a good a title.

You want to say they don't.

Who's telling who there is no such thing as private property?

Take a look in the mirror pal.

[rottweiler]

THE SUPREMES DID NOT SAY CALIFORNIA COULD EXERCISE EMINENT DOMAIN, LOS ANGELES DID!
L.A. and CALIFORNIA HAD BULL$HIT CLAIMS, SAME AS YOU.

"Petitioner owns the fee title to property known as the Ballona Lagoon, a narrow body of water connected to Marina del Rey, a manmade harbor located in a part of the city of [466 U.S. 198, 200] Los Angeles called Venice. Venice is located on the Pacific Ocean between the Los Angeles International Airport and the city of Santa Monica. The present case arises from a lawsuit brought by respondent city of Los Angeles against petitioner Summa Corp. in state court, in which the city alleged that it held an easement in the Ballona Lagoon for commerce, navigation, and fishing, for the passage of fresh waters to the Venice Canals, and for water recreation. The State of California, joined as a defendant as required by state law, filed a cross-complaint alleging that it had acquired an interest in the lagoon for commerce, navigation, and fishing upon its admission to the Union, that it held this interest in trust for the public, and that it had granted this interest to the city of Los Angeles. The city's complaint indicated that it wanted to dredge the lagoon and make other improvements without having to exercise its POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN over petitioner's property. The trial court ruled in favor of respondents, finding that the lagoon was subject to the public trust easement claimed by the city and the State, who had the right to construct improvements in the lagoon without exercising the POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN or compensating the landowners. The Supreme Court of California affirmed the ruling of the trial court. City of Los Angeles v. Venice Peninsula Properties, 31 Cal. 3d 288, 644 P.2d 792 (1982)."

You still don't get it, RED ROOKARD, Treaty Law is higher that the constitution of California and your communistic desires.

The obligation of the United States to respect [466 U.S. 198, 207] the property rights of Mexican citizens was, of course, just such an international obligation, made express by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and inherent in the law of nations, see United States v. Moreno, 1 Wall. 400, 404 (1864); United States v. Fossatt, 21 How. 445, 448 (1859).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=466&invol=198

Originally Posted by B Rookard

Wrong again.

In case you didn't notice in the case, California COULD HAVE proceeded to condemn the property ... they didn't want to do that though because they would have to pay out the wazoo to compensate Summa Corp. Even the Supreme Court said they could.

They tried to say they had an easement, to take the easy way out. And it may very well have been that they did. Their mistake was in not asserting it 150 years ago.

Now, just because the Supreme Court said they were too late to assert that they had an an easement ... does that mean they can't go out and condemn the land?

Nope.

Now they have to take the harder road.

The only kind of land patent cases involving non-taxability and that might go anywhere are Indian cases ... because they're considered a sovereign nation.

You wanna not pay taxes to the state and federal government ... you need to expatriate.

But that requires moving out of the country.

A perfectly acceptable thing to do ... people do it all the time.

[rottweiler]

Originally Posted by B Rookard

How assinine.

I'm trying to tell you that deeds convey title. And that you can have just a good a title.

You want to say they don't.

Who's telling who there is no such thing as private property?

Take a look in the mirror pal.

Excuse me, but you the one that claims private property can be taxed. I say bull$hit. A properly prepared land patent is supreme title to land and that right can not be taxed by commie scum who love lucifer.

You are the one that claims a man's labor can be taxed. I say that is more bull$hit from commie scum. That labor is the property of the man, who must produce to survive, and that natural right can not be diminished unless that man volunteers for privledges or violates another's rights.

Hale v. Hinkle
If, whenever an officer or employee of a corporation were summoned before a grand jury as a witness he could refuse to produce the books and documents of such corporation, upon the ground that they would incriminate the corporation itself, it would result in the failure of a large number of cases where the illegal combination was determinable only upon the examination of such papers. Conceding that the witness was an officer of the corporation under investigation, and that he was entitled to assert the rights of corporation with respect to the production of its books and papers, we are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the state. The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...l=201&invol=43

HE OWES NOYHING TO THE PUBLIC AS LONG AS HE DOES NOT TRESPASS UPON THEIR RIGHTS!